click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
lose 35 jobs when it shuts down. you lose jobs let schools and at local government. that is the real cost of what his policies are bringing out by supporting bureaucrats in washington. one neighbor at a time, you've got two avenues to take. one is a government solution of believes government can bring you a job. and me, who believes we can revitalize and reenergize and renew the enthusiasm for montana if we can get government out of the way in our regulatory policy and in our industries. it is not just the businesses that will turn things around. it is those who will -- to work for those businesses who will help to create better opportunities for ourselves, our children, our businesses. i look people in the eye as i travel a run montana and i do not see statistics. we do not necessarily want to talk about the unemployment rate statewide. there are 56 counties with 56 cultures and histories and their own desire for their own future. and in liberty county and might be agriculture. in lincoln county might be timber. in eastern montana it might be oil and gas and coal. i want to get gove
to the failure of, for the federal government to give money to the states in this time of crisis, which president obama supported. but you know, i think you'd see independent women, as i said before, a growing block of women, not just progressives are democrats, democratic women, could you worry about the fact that their daughter, for example, might not have access to planned parenthood, which, by the way, is really about women's health, mammograms, and not just these hot-button issues of reproductive choice. so i do think the independent women voters are the canary in the coal mined in terms of the seeing a republican party that is not hospitable or open to women's health rights, and linked to that in order to control your economic destiny you need to control your health. host: michael is a political science major. >> i will begin with the article that ran on "the nation" frontpage. why have appointments gone by the wayside in this election? guest: president obama has faced obstruction but has not been as engaged with putting forward judges. by the way, the supreme court today may be years 2% of
debates later on. maybe you two can negotiate that. if you cut government benefits -- a secretly recorded video of mitt romney at a private fund- raiser was made public -- let's take a look. >> 47% of the people -- who will vote for the president a matter what. who believe the government has responsibility to care for them. who believe they are entitled to health care and food and housing, you name it. that is an entitlement. >> texas -- in 2010, 30.5% of texans filing era -- return paid no income tax. there is no data on how many texans get government assistance, but the census bureau found 24% get social security. 20 -- 14% did retirement income. 5% disability bed -- benefits and 14% from strands. mr. cruz, do you believe that government has a responsibility to care for them? >> of course not. i agree with mitt romney when he says his comments were poorly phrased. keefe said they were in elegantly stated. i think there is a difference. part of the philosophy of president obama is trying to get as many americans as possible dependent on government so that the democrats can stay in power
on them by the government. >> he estimates the fact that as governor in eliminated the estate tax and took more than 100,000 low income virginians of the income tax rolls. i just thought i would correct him there. george and i have very different strategies. this is one of the most important programs that has ever been done by the government. more than 50% of american seniors have retired into poverty before it was passed. thank you we have -- thank god we have those days behind us. that would've been a huge catastrophe prior to the collapse in washington. what i would do is allow the payroll tax of words as a way of protecting the solvency of the program. on medicare, george allen supports the ryan budget that would turn medicare into a voucher program and push costs onto the seniors. i propose a senior savings costs, for example ending the prescription -- that we get. that would save us without jeopardize in the benefit of all. >> mr. allen, to ask both of you to take one minute to respond to tim kaine's assocation about medicare and to support the ryan budget? >> what i support is prese
, a governing and the economy. the moderator will open the segment with a question, then candidates will each have two minutes to respond. at the end, it romney in the president will have two-minute closing statements. live debate coverage tonight starts at 7:00 eastern with a preview. at the the debate, we will get your reaction with emails and tweets. all of that here at c-span. a quick look at previous presidential debates. george w. bush and al gore in 2000. >> by agreement, between the candidates, the first question goes to the governor. you have two minutes to respond. kitty was raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? no, i do not. i think you know i have not favored the death penalty my entire life. it is one of the reasons we have the biggest drop in crime in any industrial state of america and the lowest murder rates. we have work to do in this nation. we of work to do to fight a real war, not a phoney war against drugs. that is something i want to leave it. -- to lead. even though the vice president has been at least allegedly in charge of th
in changing our policy in afghanistan to count terrorism. we're trying to prop up a government in afghanistan. couldn't terrorism requires far less troops and focuses at striking against al qaeda sweledl as well as any taliban insurjents we might need for the purpose of our fight. i believe that the draw down in afghanistan is well positioned. i'm actually an advocate of something that is more accelerated. i have been for quite some time and i believe we focus on couldn't terrorism which risks less lives. >> we're going to go back on the economy. you say you support a comprehensive solution to the deficit that includes revenues and cuts in spending. can you name one program you've eliminated while you've been in congress? >> yes the s 22. i voted this is something the pentagon did not want but there were those advocating for it. i voted against the s22 which was cut by the way. i voted on a different alternative fighter engine that was not necessary as well and that was cut. and those are examples of programs that were cut. but whey don't want to do is what my opponent says he embraces the ry
years, we have had revenues coming into the federal government at a level around 15% of gdp. that is a 60-year low. since 1960, we have never had a balanced budget in a year when revenues were less than 18% of gdp. in 2001, the last year we had a surplus, revenues were at 19.5% of gdp. we have a revenue problem. we need tax reform to solve it. some on the left have suggested corporate tax reform could be a source for new revenue but here i disagree. to preserve our international competitiveness, it is imperative we seek to reduce the corporate rate from 35% and do it on a revenue-neutral basis. this will boost growth and encourage more companies to reinvest in the united states. corporate tax reform, under the leadership of chairman baucus senator hatch should be treated separately from our attempt to get a handle on the deficit. but when it comes to the individual side of the code, our approach must be different. in this part of reform, the new money we collect from broadening the tax base cannot all be applied to prepare -- to reducing rates or else we will not get enough
working for our government needs to have protection, and that is an abject failure and that should be a big thing in this election. a chocolates look at mitt romney's comments yesterday in virginia -- host: let's look at mitt romney put the comments just in virginia. [video clip] >> the attacks on america should not be seen as random act. they are a larger struggle that is played out over the middle east, a region that is in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. the fault lines of this struggle can be seen in benghazi. the attack on our consulate on september 11, 2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that affect our homeland on september 11, 2001. the latest result can not be blamed on a reprehensible video, despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that. the administration has finally conceded these attacks were the deliver work of terrorists they use violence to impose their ideology on others and who seek to wage perpetual war on the west. guest: it is interesting. on the one hand, mitt romney was criticized for his initial respo
about a stimulus and hiring more government workers and having the government making investments. of course, he talks about raising taxes. they plan to raise taxes on the american people and that will kill jobs. we want to create jobs and not kill jobs in this country. [applause] we also heard this plan are raising taxes and cutting medicare. in fact, there has been a study released this week. the people look at his spending plans and all of the debt they create and interest that its charge. he will raise taxes on the middle class as well by some $4,000 per family. the american people do not want more taxes. they want less spending and more growth. we will do that and get america back on a balanced budget. [applause] i do not want to raise taxes on any one. this president seems to think that keeping our taxes the same as they are now is a huge tax cut. only in washington would do thing keeping taxes as they are is a huge tax cut. hot i will find a way to bring our taxes down -- i will find a way to bring down our taxes. we will give the middle class a tax break. [cheers and appla
anybody is entitled to success. we don't believe government should help people who are not trying to help themselves. but we do believe in something called opportunity. we believe that hard work should pay off in this country, responsibility should be rewarded in this country, that this is a country where everybody should get a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules. we believe in an america where no matter what you look like or where you come from, what your last name is, who you love, that you can make it if you try. that is the country i believe in, that is what i and fighting for, that is why i am running for a second term as president of the united states. [applause] [crowd changint "four more years"] what i want to promote is a new economic patriotism, that we grow this economy best where everybody has a shot and the middle class is thriving. i will pretend that it will be easy to get there. it took us a bunch -- i will not pretend that it will be easy to get there. it took us a bunch of years to get into this mess and will take
perspective when it comes to the tune of government than i do. i think you believe that government is the wherewithal for what we need in this country. i do not. i believe in private enterprise, private responsibility, but i thank you for your service. welcome for that service. i respect that she is a mother, a rancher, a small business person. i think she is campaigning in all three of those things they have a great deal of respect for what she did on a school board and a legislature. you are always putting yourself at risk. we have fundamental disagreements. the negative advertising, in one year and -- on you have to do is avoid watching television is not a bad option. what she just said is not true. i started a business in nebraska, and the first thing i had to do to start our business must get a permit from the city office, talk to the county, the state. i understand that government does not create jobs. i understand you've got to be careful with taxes and regulation to make that hpen. thats political rhetoric in my view, and it does not resemble the facts. she said it is diffu
people that want to work. everybody in this country should succeed, not just people in government. host: president obama gave an address yesterday talking about how congress should act to keep taxes low. let's take a listen. >> 97% of small-business owners will not see their taxes go up next year. this is something everybody says they agree on. it should have gotten done months ago. republicans in congress are standing in the way. there are holding tax cuts for 98% of americans hostage until they pass tax cuts for of the richest 2%. congress needs to step up and provide every responsible homeowner a chance to save $3,000 a year on mortgage at refinancing at lower rates. i give them a plan to do that in february. it is a plan that has the support of independent nonpartisan economists. republicans will not let it come to a vote. ask them how that helps homeowners. congress needs to step up and pass my plan to create a job corps to help our returning heroes find jobs as cops, firefighters and park rangers across the country. republicans in the senate voted that plane down. ask them why som
had four years ago. a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, trickle-down government would work. host: facebook.com/span. what were the highs and lows of the debate is what we had on our facebook page. we're trying to read as many of those as possible. here is the front page of "the news york times." gil from pensacola, florida on our others line. caller: as a debate, i think that mitt romney did very well. this is a about a campaign. the question is where were you then and how are you now? how will you bring it around? what do you have to do to change tax policy? people can see a point in time at any minute and make a decision, but if you are looking at the long road, i keep saying, okay, mr. obama, what are you going to change to get the house and the senate to work together? mr. romney, what is your plan? which of the plants that you talk about are you there for? -- which of the plans are you there for? are you going to give a 20% across the board tax reduction? as a person that follows this stuff, i find it is difficult to take one minute in the ev
conservative as katherine made clear, there's nothing conservative about a government that prevents a woman from making her own health care decisions. governor romney talks about freedom. but freedom is the ability to determine the care you need when you need it. freedom is the ability to change jobs or start your own business without the fear of losing your health insurance. freedom is the knowledge that you'll no longer be charged more than men for the same health care. or denied affordable coverage just because you've beat cancer. and at a time when women make up nearly half the work force, and an increasing share of family bread winners, these are not just health issues or women's issues. these are economic issues that are vital and affect every family in america. they matter. when -- when a woman is the main bread winner for her family but takes home less pay for the same work, as a man does because she's a woman, that is not right. when my opponent's campaign was asked if he'd support legislation given -- giving women the tools to fight for an equal day's pay for an equal day's work,
difficult to govern, because redistricting is a part of this and the incentive among people in congress, whether it is a republican president or a democratic president, is to oppose virtually everything that the president of the opposite party wants to throudo. our system depends on cooperation and compromise. that's why many people across the political spectrum are very frustrated on how things are not working in washington. host: let's go to mark next. you could have a triangle between ohio, virginia, and florida, the three battleground states. mark is in florida. caller: thanks, steve. and thanks to your guests for all their work. seems whenever i call, you are hosting the show. at age 18 through age 30 i was in the u.s. marines and guarded the u.s. embassy and as a marine, which had its own demands. i did well at that. i am a unionized worker in the united states. i gave the non-unionized world a chance and got the beat out of me. i got my dignity back years ago by joining organized labor. my father was in the union. i moved south to florida from the midwest. i build an area called
of that nature. now, it's different whether there's a government grant, where the market power derives from political authority. and that's true of some of the essential facility cases. stadiums, stadium approvals and the like. but if the facility has become essential through market processes, which is surely the case of google, it represents success. and that firm is entitled to all the reward it can gain. now, greg and bob do a terrific job of showing why the google experience does not fit the scraps of law on essential facilities. but i think they should go further. they should deny that there's any merit to the concept at all. now, i think this is true of other parts of the paper. as i alluded to earlier, much of the paper is empirical. and i learned a lot from it really. there's a lot of detail in it. and i learned a lot. but the -- those responses and that empirical -- making the point that criticism by competitors of google's practices are just wrong on the facts. but i think that that's not enough. especially in representing the chicago school. the failings of the arguments by googl
that the next american president will be governing a shrinking middle class. people in that income range had a message for the president that transcended political ideology. the percentage of americans that fit into the middle income category was exacerbated in the 2000's as median family income shrunk. in colorado, where it started to raise in 2007, its stubbornly hung around 8% for the last year. it is the slower rate compared to household population overall. other articles look at the impact of the latino vote in colorado. let's hear what you have to say. bob is in new york city on the democratic line. caller: i have two questions for the candidates. why, in this day and age, are women's reproductive rights even being called up? are they aware that in this century, at this late date -- why are we going back and rehashing this? an issue that has been dealt with and should not even be on the table? also, i would want to know possibly, and i will vote for the president, and from him i would want to know why -- i thought that his calling when he came to office was to get on top of wall street
after submit to the government. it's a highly transparent operation. it is in this house atmosphere under a scorching aware of the spotlight that leadership is on display at for everyone to see. it's like a leadership reality show. imagine coming to work to a place where everything boss says, every decision that you make, every action your organization takes is available for everyone to see, if you think about it this way, the campaign is pretty amazing. and so, i like to use the 2008 campaign as a canvas. i like to use it as a way to talk about some of the things -- it's like, using it as a laboratory, to understand why winners win and why losers lose. if you look at 2008, you have everything from how did you take this little known brand of barack obama and turn it into a campbell soup of politics, which is what you had with the clintons, they had a very long history and years of service. how do you manage through a crisis? what happens when that prices outside starts to shake the confidence inside? how do you get control of a narrative that is escaping? all those things are availa
with concerned parties in both the government and the private sector. we have been on the hill at the pentagon, with the department of labor and presidential task forces and in board rooms across the country and it's baring results. you work with us to make the strites with legislation such as the recent vow to hire veterans act and the skills act of 2012. we are greatful for this dedication and cooperation that congress has shown us on this issue. clearly you have heard the concerns of veterans and we appreciate everything you've done to improve the situation on the federal level. but we cannot let up. as the american legion workes to capitalize on these gains and increase our efforts, we need to keep working with the states to improve their acceptens of military training as the federal government has already done. legislation like the hire to home act and help state efforts to recognize military training, education and experience t. american legion is now working with groups such as the american national standards institute, the solutions of information to advise u.s. army training and doctr
, we have surveillance techniques capable that we can utilize. the federal government should be doing it. but we have to -- we should have already passed the dream act for these children in this state who through no fault of their own are here. they have no country. all they want is the american dream. ted likes to talk about liberty, but he only wants liberty for people he agrees with. liberty for these kids means becoming a citizen. why we turned them down over and over is beyond me. we should pass the greenback. -- the dream act already. finally, we should have a worker program to identify people here. they should pay taxes. then we should have some kind of clear pathway. it does not mean the front of the line. we can make whatever requirements we want. but we cannot continue to stick our head in the sand. this is too important, too important for our state. if we do not do anything, we will have the same discussion. >> mr. cruz, do you support a path to citizenship for the 1.6 texas? >> i do not. and let me say more broadly, i think there is a very clear divide. as i said before, i
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)